OSHA PSM citations @ chicken processing facility (NH3 & $308K)

Inspections of the leading supplier of fast food and supermarket chicken processing facilities have resulted in an additional $462,000 in penalties for deficiencies in ammonia refrigeration systems at two of the company’s facilities. The leading supplier of fast food and supermarket chicken has racked up more than $1.87 million in fines from OSHA this year for exposing workers to multiple safety and health violations. OSHA cited the company for 11 repeated, four serious and two other-than-serious violations on Dec. 1. Proposed penalties total $308,000. Another company facility in the same state faces an additional $154,000 in penalties after OSHA cited it for five repeated and three serious violations on Dec. 1. OSHA cited the business in 2011 for many of the same violations. The agency’s follow-up inspection found 16 repeated and five serious violations of PSM procedures for ammonia refrigeration systems. Inspectors found the company lacked clear, written operating procedures, failed to test and inspect systems and did not provide adequate training for workers. OSHA also determined that the company failed to perform annual bloodborne pathogen refresher training, provide hepatitis B vaccine for workers exposed to bloodborne pathogens, and store gas cylinders properly. Here is a breakdown of the citations:

Citation 1 Item 1a

Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500

29 CPR 1910.101(b): “Compressed gases.” The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks shall be in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in Sec. 1910.6:

On or about June 10, 2015, in the front of chicken house no. 1, two refrigerant gas cylinders, containing a 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane mixture (UN 1078), were not secured to prevent them from being knocked over and damaged while in storage.

Citation 1 Item 1b

Type of Violation: Serious; GROUPED

29 CFR 1910.102(a): Cylinders. Employers must ensure that the in-plant transfer, handling, storage, and use of acetylene in cylinders comply with the provisions of CGA Pamphlet G-1-2003 (“Acetylene”) (Compressed Gas Association, Inc., 11th ed., 2003):

On or about June 10, 2015, in the front of chicken house no. 1, an acetylene gas cylinder (UN 1001) was not secured to prevent it from being knocked over and damaged while in storage.
On or about June 10, 2015, in the front of chicken house no. 1, an acetylene gas cylinder (UN 1001) in storage and designed to accept a cap did not have a valve protection cap in place and hand-tightened.

Citation 1 Item 2

Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i): Information concerning the technology of the process shall include at least the following:

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(D): Safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions:

On or about June 10, 2015, the process safety information pertaining to the technology of the ammonia refrigeration system did not include all of the safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, and levels in equipment including, but not limited, to the following:
1. high pressure receiver (HPR),
2. high temperature recirculator (R-1),
3. low temperature recirculator (R-2),
4. 300 ton heat exchanger (RWC-3),
5. 250 ton heat exchanger (RWC-4),
6. compressors (C-2 through C-8),
7. accumulator (A-1),
8. thermosyphon vessel (TSV),
9. transfer vessel (TV-1), and
10. evaporative condensers (EC-1 – EC-3).

Citation 1 Item 3

Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500

29 CFR 191O.119(f)(1): The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements:

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(ii): Operating limits:

On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Accumulator A-1” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the high level limits, temperature limits, and pressure limits were not identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure High Pressure Receiver HPR” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the temperature limits and pressure limits were not identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Recirculator Vessel R-1” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the high level cutout and high level alarm were both set at 70% in lieu of the identified 90% and 80%, respectively; and the temperature limits and pressure limits were not identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Recirculator Vessel R-2” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the high level cutout was set at 80% in lieu of the identified 90%; the low level cutout and low level alarm as identified in the procedure did not exist; and the temperature limits and pressure limits were not identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure RWC-3” for the Morris 300 ton heat exchanger did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the low suction pressure was 28 psig and the high suction pressure was 50 psig in lieu of the identified <28 psig and >28 psig, respectively; the high level limits and temperature limits were not identified; and the consequences of deviation was loss of cooling for water in lieu of the identified loss of refrigeration in the cooler.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure RWC-4” for the Morris 250 ton heat exchanger did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the low suction pressure was 28 psig and the high suction pressure was 50 psig in lieu of the identified <28 psig and >28 psig, respectively; the high level limits and temperature limits were not identified; and the consequences of deviation was loss of cooling for water in lieu of the identified loss of refrigeration in the cooler.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Condenser EC-1” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the temperature limits were not identified and pressure limits were not properly identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Condenser EC-2” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the temperature limits were not identified and pressure limits were not properly identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Condenser EC-3” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the temperature limits were not identified and pressure limits were not properly identified.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Compressor #3 (C-3)” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the capacity control pressure as identified in the procedure did not exist and was not accurate.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Compressor #6 (C-6)” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the low suction pressure cutout was 14 inches HG in lieu of the identified 13.0 psig; and the capacity control pressure as identified in the procedure did not exist and was not accurate.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Compressor #8 (C-8)” did not contain accurate operating limits including, but not limited to, the following: the capacity control pressure was not accurate and was not identified as capacity control volume.

Citation 1 Item 4

Type of Violation: Serious; $5,500

29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(2)(i): Hepatitis B vaccination shall be made available after the employee has received the training required in paragraph (g)(2)(vii)(I) and within ten working days of initial assignment to all employees who have occupational exposure unless the employee has previously received the complete hepatitis B vaccination series, antibody testing has revealed that the employee is immune, or the vaccine is contraindicated for medical reasons:

At the workplace, the employer did not make available the hepatitis B vaccine for employees that were part of the MERT (Medical Emergency Response Team) and were designated and authorized to provide first aid and CPR.

Citation 2 Item 1

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i): Information concerning the technology of the process shall include at least the following:

29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(C): Maximum intended inventory:

On or about June 10, 2015, the process safety information pertaining to the technology of the ammonia refrigeration system did not include an accurate maximum intended inventory for ammonia.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(2)(i)(C), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number l(b) and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 2

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1): The employer shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements:

As of June 10, 2015, the employer did not develop and implement written operating procedures consistent with PSI that provided clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the operations of the thermosyphon vessel (TSV) including oil draining instructions without an oil pot.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Accumulator A-1” did not clearly identify the following valves throughout the procedure: HSS hand valve, HPL hand valve, and PO valve.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Recirculator Vessel R-1” identified oil pot draining in the task flow diagram when no oil pot existed, and had steps 6 and 7 reversed in section 11, Oil Draining.
On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Recirculator Vessel R-2” identified oil pot draining in the task flow diagram when no oil pot existed, and had steps 6 and 7 reversed in section 11, Oil Draining.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 29 CFR 1910.119(t)(l)(i)(B), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 3(a) and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 3

Type ofViolation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i): Steps for each operating phase:

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B): Normal operations:

On or about June 10, 2015, the written “Standard Operating Procedure Accumulator A-1” did not address oil draining instructions without an oil pot.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 3(a) and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 4

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iv): Safety systems and their functions:

On or about June 10, 2015, the written standard operating procedures did not address the safety systems and their functions.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(f)(1)(iv), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 3(b) and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 5

Type of Violation: Repeat; $22,000

29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process.

The employer, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training:

As of June 10, 2015, the employer did not provide refresher training every three years on the standard operating procedures for two employees involved as back-up for emergency shutdown of the ammonia refrigeration system.

Busniess was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 10 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 6

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): Written procedures. The employer shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment:

As of June 10, 2015, the employer did not establish and implement written mechanical integrity procedures for inspecting and testing of piping and flanges.
As of June 10, 2015, the employer’s written mechanical integrity procedure for inspecting and testing safety cutouts, “Standard Operating Procedure Refrigeration Safety Cutouts”, did not accurately identify the low suction pressure and low oil pressure under operating limits and did not identify the frequency of inspections and tests for low suction pressure cutout, high discharge pressure cutout, low oil pressure cutout/oil differential cutout, vessel high level testing, ventilation testing, emergency stop testing, and ammonia sensor shutdown testing.
As of June 10, 2015, the employer’s written mechanical integrity procedure for testing and calibrating the Cool Air Ammonia Leak Detectors addressed three units in lieu of four.
As of June 10, 2015, the employer did not establish and implement written mechanical integrity procedures for inspecting and testing the low level switch and alarm on the high temperature recirculator (R-1).

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119G)(2), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 11 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 7

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CPR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii): The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers’ recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience:

On or about August 12, 2015, in the ammonia refrigeration system, the inspections and testing of insulated and uninsulated piping and associated components such as flanges were not performed annually as consistent with RAGAGEP and the frequency established by the employer’s Mechanical Integrity Program.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iii), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 12 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 8

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500 29

CFR 1910.119(l)(1): The employer shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process:

A management of change covering the construction of the building (white building rebuild) on or about January 2012 around the 300 ton heat exchanger (RWC-3) and associated piping was not written and implemented to ensure that the changes to the facility did not affect the ammonia covered process.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 13 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 9

Type of Violation: Repeat; $27,500

29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4): The employer shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected:

The employer did not promptly determine and document an appropriate response to 12 of the findings, item numbers 2.17, 2.13, 2.23, 8.16, 8.2, 8.22, 8.23, 12.1, 12.14, 12.88, 12.5, and 12.34, on the compliance audit dated on or about February 13 and 14, 2012.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.119(o)(4), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 14(e) and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 10

Type ofViolation: Repeat; $22,000

29 CFR 1910.176(b): Secure storage. Storage of material shall not create a hazard. Bags, containers, bundles, etc., stored in tiers shall be stacked, blocked, interlocked and limited in height so that they are stable and secure against sliding or collapse:

On or about June 10, 2015, in the rear chemical storage room for bases (chicken house no. 1 ), acids were stored together with bases such as, but not limited to, the following: two 55 gallon containers of Divoact H-32 containing hydrochloric acid (pH 1) were stored with bases, one of which was stored adjacent to five 304 gallon totes of Ecolab Sanova Base 25% containing sodium chlorite (pH 12.2-12.8).
On or about June 10, 2015, in the rear chemical storage room for bases (chicken house no. 1), acids were stored together with bases such as, but not limited to, the following:
1. two 55 gallon containers of AFCO 8738 38% Sodium Bisulfite (pH 4.1-4.6) were stored among five 304 gallon totes of Ecolab Sanova Base 25% containing sodium chlorite (pH 12.2-12.8), ten 55 gallon containers of Aquarnark Sodium Hypochlorite 12.5% (pH 11-13), eight 55 gallon containers ofOxyChem Technical Sodium Chlorite Solution 31.25 (pH> 12), and four 55 gallon containers of Sentinel Solutions TransIT-C containing sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (pH 13).

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29CFR 1910.176(b), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 1, item number 26 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 2 Item 11

Type of Violation: Repeat; $22,000

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(ii): Training shall be provided as follows:

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(ii)(B): At least annually thereafter:

As of June 24, 2015, the annual bloodborne pathogen refresher training for employees who were part of the MERT (Medical Emergency Response Team) and were designated and authorized to provide first aid and CPR was past due.

Business was previously cited for a violation of this occupational safety and health standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)(ii)(B), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 77245, citation number 2, item number 4 and was affirmed as a final order on May 16, 2013, with respect to a workplace located in Ohio.

Citation 3 Item 1

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0.00

29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(iv): The employer shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test:

On or about June 10, 2015, the Annual Inspection of Structure and Pipe Supports, dated June 18, 2014, identified a piece of process equipment as RWC-4 (240 ton) in lieu of the actual RWC-2 (140 ton).
On or about June 10, 2015, the Annual Inspection of Structure and Pipe Supports, dated June 6, 2015, identified a piece of process equipment as RWC-4 (240 ton) in lieu of the actual RWC-4 (250 ton).

Citation 3 Item 2

Type of Violation: Other-than-Serious; $0.00

29 CFR 1910.134(m)(2)(i): The employer shall establish a record of the qualitative and quantitative fit tests administered to an employee including:

29 CFR 1910.134(m)(2)(i)(C): Specific make, model, style, and size of respirator tested:

At the workplace, the employer’s fit test record for a refrigeration technician dated on or about June 18, 2015, did not identify the model of the respirator.
At the workplace, the employer’s fit test record for a refrigeration technician dated on or about April 30, 2015, did not identify the make, model, style, and size of the respirator.
At the workplace, the employer’s fit test record for a maintenance technician dated on or about December 12, 2014, did not identify the size of the respirator.

CLICK HERE for the citations

Related Posts